NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 04:51 PM) I just wish that somehow our team could actually focus on finding a leadoff hitter who actually fits with the makeup of the rest of the team. We have a murderous 3-4-5 with a ton of power. We hit a sh*t load of home runs. Stealing bases in front of those type of guys does not have nearly as high of an impact on run production as simply being on base. It's not a bad thing if you're not thrown out a lot, but it's not going to be the end-all-be-all. If you could find me a LF/SS with an OBP somewhere above .350 or .360, I'd be very happy...and spend the rest of my money on pitching. How about a guy who had a BA/OBP of .327/.354 in 2006, can play LF as well as Pods did (not saying much), would cost about 500k and is already on the roster?

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 03:35 PM) I don't think there's a problem DEFENDING these scumbags that she works for, however AIDING them in their activities is quite different. That difference is exactly what I was referring to. Its an important distinction that was being glossed over.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 02:43 PM) he'll be brought in to replace iPods and probably play left (unless the move Anderson to left)/ If they acquire Pierre and still start Anderson, there is zero reason to flip Anderson to left. Brian is an outstanding centerfielder. Too bad Pierre doesn't play shortstop. That would solve so many problems...

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 12:20 PM) What are you talking about? Who said anything about public defenders and other defense attorneys? I dont need words put in my mouth thanks. YOU did. YOU talk about people who defend cop-killers and Black Panthers as being somehow evil. I disagree. I personally think that defending those people, and yes, even terrorists, is a thankless and noble job. The problem isn't who she defended. Its that she broke the law doing it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 10:30 AM) There is a difference between a metaphor which means to complete a task and that picture. If anyone posted a picture of Bush, two birds, and a rock, would that be a threat? Yes, I believe the Secret Service acted correctly. And by getting the media to report on it, it sends a clear and important message. I agree there is a difference, and that is why the USSS will not be knocking on Kerry's door. But, I do not think that Kerry's line is "OK". I think it was, as I said, over the line, and I expect more from someone in his position. This goes to one of the things I've always disliked about Kerry - his tendency to blend the elder statesman affect with words and actions that are more like a petulant child. He has these Howard Dean moments, and will say things that are strident just to get attention, then back off and act as if he is above such emotional reactions. Bottom line, like I said... that reference in its current wording (adjusted to one target) was over the line, and Kerry should be embarrassed as a Senator to have said such a thing.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 10:18 AM) There has to be some common sense. Using your example, there are different levels of joking about stuff. Bad: This line is so long, the guard so inept, I'm going to bring a real bomb here and see what happens. Not so bad: I'm going to use my supernatural powers to build a snot bomb using mind waves and see what happens. Not bad at all: I'm going to go get a bottle of Jager and get us all bombed. I think most rational human beings in America have heard the phrase Killing two birds with one stone. If anyone thinks that actually means killing something and not completing two things, they are an idiot. Except the phrase was modified to target one subject. I don't for a second think that John Kerry has any intent to harm Bush. Not at all. But I do think there are good reasons why, when it comes to things of this nature, there can be little allowance for such words. And further, as a statesman, I think Kerry needs to be more careful. Here is an example, I saw in the news yesterday... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/14/...in2089658.shtml High school girl puts a picture of Bush on her blog, with a drawn in dagger stabbing him, with the word "Kill" followed by his name. It was there for a day, then taken down. I doubt she intended to kill anyone. But, I also think the Secret Service did precisely what they needed to in this case. Do you agree, or no?

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 09:56 AM) My gut reaction is it wasn't a joke about killing anything. To say this is about killing George Bush is a pretty awful stretch. It was just a bad joke. In my opinion, it doesn't much matter. This is sort of like someone joking about a bomb while standing line at airport security. Motive and intent are irrelevant.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 09:24 AM) Really? Great defense is a positive. 14 errors certainly limits that positive. Abysmal hitting is a negative. $4.15M for a s***ty player is also a negative. How awful does this guy have to be before some Sox fans finally get it? 14 errors for a shortstop is not a negative. That makes him #1 in the AL for least errors among qualified shortstops, and 3rd among AL SS's in fielding percentage. Tell me again how that is a negative? You want errors, look at our last shorstop Mr. Valentin and his 40 errors in one season. And $4.15M for a starting SS isn't bad, considering he's got 20 HR power and, as noted above, excellent defense. His hitting is pretty atrocious though, outside the power numbers. I certainly agree on that.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 11:20 PM) They still have Hendry as GM, and Rothschild will now stay as pitching coach, so nothing will change really IMO. I would guess that Lou will at least reconsider ALL of the coaching staff. I am sure that Rothschild will be on the list for Lou to think about possibly removing.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Oct 17, 2006 -> 08:36 AM) Great defense + 14 errors + abysmal hitting + $4.15M salary = a bad shortstop As far as I can tell, that's 3 positives and 1 negative.

This is causing quite a stir here today. This is huge. Aren't CBOE and CHX already aligned anyway, in some ways? With CME setting up a Cleared FX Marketplace this year, moving them closer to the equities world (along with SSF's), I'd say that what you are suggesting is very possible. But not easy. CBOT and CME were different exchanges, but they shared a clearing house - and the clearing house end of things is more complicated than the venue side. If CBOE and/or CHX were to be added on, you'd need to settle out how to handle common clearing across instrument types like Eurex does, which will take some time and money.

Sheehan went over the cuckoo's nest a long time ago. I cannot see the YouTube video here at work, but I'll watch it tonight. My gut reaction to the quote is, even if it was part of a joke, it was over the line. I'll reserve further judgement until I see it.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 06:33 PM) http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/16/terror.trial.ap/index.html What a shame. Here we have someone who spent her life doing everything in her power to free cop-killers, black panthers, and anarchists caps off her career by aiding terrorists and some soft ass judge gives her a tenth of the sentence she should have recieved. This scum should have been locked in a 4x8 cell for the rest of her natural life with photos of the victims of those she aided embedded in the walls. Lumping in public defenders and other defense attornies with someone convicted of aiding a terrorist is assinine. Please rejoin us in reality.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 04:04 PM) http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/16/con...n.ap/index.html correction it was his home not office Correction: his daughter's home.

QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 04:01 PM) the houses take. you'll see that in a vegas casino, for every $10 you bet on a straight up bet (pts, etc) you will win $9.10 for every $10 bet. So in your example, you'd lose the $1,000 in one situation and win $910 in the other. The only way you make $ is if it falls inbetween. which can certainly happen in close games. That's what I meant by "fees".

QUOTE(AbeFroman @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 03:46 PM) I don't gamble on professional sports. But I often check the lines for NFL games, just to see which teams are best favored for my survival football league. Why I was browsing the lines, I had an epiphany: The following situation occurred last week: On PinnacleSports.com, the Denver Broncos were 14.5 point favorites over the Raiders On Bodog.com, the Denver Broncos were 16.5 favorites over the Raiders So why not do the following: Bet $1000 on Pinnacle Sports on the Broncos Bet $1000 on Bodog.com on the Raiders. Now, in this situation, if the game is decided by 7 points, you break even... if the game is decided by 20 points, you break even... BUT, if the game is decided by 15 or 16 points, you win $2000 cause both bets pay out!!!! Essentially, you are arbitraging two bets. Sure you don't perfectly break even cause the casino takes a percentage on a win... but you get two bets for the price of one. And, these guys who determine the spreads are really really good. If often happens that they are very close.... So odds seem really good that the eventual outcome lies somewhere between the two lines. This seems all two promising... What's the downside that I'm missing? That is exactly arbitraging. And it appears to be legal, in this case. But as with any arb activity, you need to take into account some other factors - opportunity cost (not having the capital in hand during the bet period) is one, and another is the fee associated with the bet or transaction (if any). You weigh those costs against the interpolated payout (arb-winning payout amount multiplied by percentage chance getting that win), to see if its worth it. Of course, since you won't know for sure what the chances are, you are taking a bit of a flyer. Those spreads are usually narrow, and only exist for brief periods (for this exact reason). So you would need to be fast and lucky. But if you were really good at getting a lot of data from various markets (casinos or what not) instantaneously, and we able to legally make the multiple bets in those intervals on a large scale... maybe you could make money. Here is the catch - to get the amount of data you'd need, instantly, you need to either hire people at the casinos to be watchers (adding cost and potentially negating your profit), or use the internet - and that will probably make the acticity illegal. So... any income you derive from that illegal gambling becomes problematic. You are not only violating laws on gambling, but you are also shunting the IRS. And don't think for a second those entities would try to protect you from the IRS, since you are essentially stealing from them. You'd have them AND the IRS against you. That, right there, is a pretty big risk to take.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 02:40 PM) Umm, I think some of you mis-read one thing. Good!

QUOTE(whitesox1976 @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 12:28 PM) As I am said before, managing don't make any difference to the Cubs the trouble is ownership. I this sentence. It looks like an unedited Ozzie quote.

Tribune article makes it seem inevitable... http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseb...i-sportstop-hed And somehow, I doubt they'd be guessing here.

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Oct 16, 2006 -> 09:52 AM) Throwing them out there for s***s and giggles. Carlton Fisk, Jeff Torborg, Jack McKeon, Joe Nossek, Buck Showalter, or my favorites Cookie Rojas or Don Zimmer. Fisk would certainly be the anti-Ozzie. And no doubt he has the head for it. The questions are... does he even want to coach? And has the bridge between him and Reinsdorff been repaired sufficiently for that?

Dear Mr. Selig- Please do not do anything to further lengthen the season, which already extends far too late in the year for teams not in the tropics. Thank you. -Baseball Fan

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Oct 15, 2006 -> 07:50 PM) I'll wear a freaking Magnavox hat during the games if it means we have more money to spend on winning the World Series, so no big deal. And since you'll be the only person on earth wearing one... we'll all know who you are when we see you at the Cell.

Let's make sure we differentiate between lawyers who are part of the criminal legal system, and those on the civil suit and litigation side. Big difference. And as Nuke said, the problem is the fact that our society is filled with "asshats" who are consistently unwilling to take personal responsibility (in this case, the city government is the asshat). The lawyers are just enablers. I blame the asshats a lot more than I do the lawyers. Since the societal trend away from taking responsibility will take a long time to reverse, there are two other things that can be done - tort reform and the removal of juries from civil trials. I realize the latter is an unpopular idea, but I personally don't believe the jury trial system works. In the case of this specific issue, the federal government could intervene in some fashion. Probably would be a good PR move too, for whatever branch goes after it first.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2006 -> 01:44 PM) From todays MC News Dispatch http://www.michigancityin.com/articles/200.../14/news/n2.txt Great stuff, Mike.

I suppose I am person #2... Hey Tex - why is this in Buster? I have both a manual-inflating air pad (square, not trimmed for weight), and a ridgerest (full length). I've always felt that whatever sleeping surface I bring was worth a little extra weight to be comfy. I like the manual-inflating pad because it was cheaper and slightly lighter than a similar, self-inflating one. I forget what brand it is, but its flat-surfaced (not a series of ribs), with some built-in foam. Basically, nowadays, I bring just the ridgerest when backpacking long distance (when weight really matters). If its a short trip, or a canoeing trip or something like that, I bring the inflatable. But its been my experience that the inflatable only gives slightly more comfort than the ridgerest anyway, so why bother with the extra weight? Plus the ridgerest is bomb-proof, can be used for sitting, is easy to use (all of which you mentioned), and makes a great split if needed as such. Here is a tip - pull out your sweatshirt/fleece or whatever soft, cold weather top you have, and lay it out between you and the pad (or the pad and the ground), from lower back to mid-thigh. It helps for me, maybe for you as well. I'm 6'3" with a pretty broad frame. So I tend to be over the sides and the end a lot. So I also ball up something and put it under my feet past the end of the pad - especially if it will be cold.